LuxBorrow: From Pompier to Pompjee, Tracing Borrowing in Luxembourgish

Nina Hosseini-Kivanani, Fred Philippy · Mar 11, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

We present LuxBorrow, a borrowing-first analysis of Luxembourgish (LU) news spanning 27 years (1999-2025), covering 259,305 RTL articles and 43.7M tokens. Our pipeline combines sentence-level language identification (LU/DE/FR/EN) with a token-level borrowing resolver restricted to LU sentences, using lemmatization, a collected loanword registry, and compiled morphological and orthographic rules. Empirically, LU remains the matrix language across all documents, while multilingual practice is pervasive: 77.1% of articles include at least one donor language and 65.4% use three or four. Breadth does not imply intensity: median code-mixing index (CMI) increases from 3.90 (LU+1) to only 7.00 (LU+3), indicating localized insertions rather than balanced bilingual text. Domain and period summaries show moderate but persistent mixing, with CMI rising from 6.1 (1999-2007) to a peak of 8.4 in 2020. Token-level adaptations total 25,444 instances and exhibit a mixed profile: morphological 63.8%, orthographic 35.9%, lexical 0.3%. The most frequent individual rules are orthographic, such as on->oun and eur->er, while morphology is collectively dominant. Diachronically, code-switching intensifies, and morphologically adapted borrowings grow from a small base. French overwhelmingly supplies adapted items, with modest growth for German and negligible English. We advocate borrowing-centric evaluation, including borrowed token and type rates, donor entropy over borrowed items, and assimilation ratios, rather than relying only on document-level mixing indices.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.